CCPR/C/116/D/2411/2014 3.3 He further submits that his right to equality of arms under article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant was violated when the presiding judge in the court of first instance refused to read the pretrial statements of the witnesses (Mr. D. and Mr. S.), whose numerous pretrial statements were allegedly incoherent and controversial and contradicted the statements made in court. He also claims a violation of article 14 (3) (b) and (g) of the Covenant without providing further details. 3.4 The author claims that the court violated article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant because he was found guilty under article 307 (2) of the Criminal Code of giving false testimony when interrogated on the alleged attempt to his life while, at the same time, being found guilty of staging the attempt on his life by exploding a grenade in his apartment. He claims that, under article 51 of the Constitution, a person who gives false testimony when interrogated as a witness in a crime cannot be held responsible for having given such testimony if he or she has participated in the crime in question. 3.5 The author finally alleges a violation of his rights under article 15 (1) of the Covenant on two accounts: (a) the court of supervisory instance worsened his situation by increasing the term in prison under some of the articles of his sentence, compared to the terms imposed by the court of first instance; and (b) the courts did not take into account the decriminalization of his actions by article 205 of the Criminal Code as amended on 27 July 2006 and made an error by applying to him a heavier penalty under the old version of the Code instead of requalifying his actions under different articles of the Criminal Code. State party’s observations 4.1 In a note verbale dated 31 July 2014, the State party submitted that, since the author had filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights in 2008, his complaint to the Committee was inadmissible under article 2 (5) of the Optional Protocol. 4.2 In a note verbale dated 6 October 2014, the State party submitted its comments on admissibility and the merits. It stated that the author’s allegations of a violation of articles 14 and 15 of the Covenant were considered by the Supreme Court acting as a supervisory instance (see its decision of 19 November 2008). The Supreme Court found no confirmation of the biased attitude of the judge presiding over the court of first instance and found that her behaviour corresponded with the requirements of procedural legislation. The Supreme Court noted that the witnesses were questioned during the hearing and that the defence had the opportunity to ask them questions about the inconsistencies in the statements they made during the pretrial investigation. The defence, however, did not avail itself of that opportunity. 4.3 The Supreme Court also noted that the evidence and conclusions of experts were studied during the court hearing in accordance with established procedure. The request of the defence to conduct an additional expert examination was rejected by the presiding judge with due account taken of the opinion of the trial participants and with the reasons for the refusal reflected in the trial record. The Supreme Court repealed the author’s sentence under article 307 (2) of the Criminal Code. As for the author’s claims about the erroneous qualification of his actions under article 205 of the old Criminal Code, the Supreme Court found that the new wording of article 205 did not decriminalize his actions and that there was therefore no reason to qualify them differently. The overall sentence of 21 years in a penal colony of maximum security was calculated by the Supreme Court in accordance with article 69 of the Criminal Code, which sets the rules for determining sentences for cumulative offences and was fair and proportionate to his actions. 4.4 As for the author’s allegations concerning a violation of article 7 of the Covenant, the Supreme Court notes that the transcript of the trial does not reflect any mention by the author of cruel treatment. The author submitted his comments for inclusion in the transcript 5